Opinions & EditorialsDiscuss No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web) at the General Forum; Originally Posted by foundit66
What Net Neutrality DOES do is prevent Comcast from throttling service to Sturmfrunt to a crawl. ...

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

First, the issue with the bakers and wedding cakes IS government; not private...
And I DO agree that the government should stay out of it and let ISPs censor who they want...
Why?...For the same reason ESPN is losing subscribers by the hordes...The market and the public will decide who is being partisan a-holes and censoring for all the wrong reasons...

Football is not a reasonable comparison to the strangle-hold monopoly that ISPs have on internet access.
With football, it's easily recognizable that one could shift to another sport if "football" is deemed boycott worthy.
With ISPs, there is no realistic alternative.

The ISPs have successfully created a monopoly for themselves and we can't just say "free market will fix it" when the evidence clearly shows the free market fixes nothing regarding ISPs.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surly

The last several days I have tried to read up and understand this topic. I still don't. But private censorship is not govt censorship. Seems to me like conservatives should be all for ISP's being allowed to censure anyone or group they want to. Kinda like bakers and wedding cakes.

Like you, I've tried to figure it out and I don't understand. First, what was the problem Obama tried to solve? Was there a problem?

Second, why does anyone believe the government can do something better? If that is even the situation.

Third, why does anyone think the government is ever going to be neutral?

Government says:

Private industry must hire two from group A, 3 fro group B.

Private business must provide services for whatever group is currently in favor.

Religious groups, which are the only Constitutionally protected groups, must provide birth control against their beliefs.

With Net Neutrality, Comcast would be required to provide the streaming video from Netflix & Amazon Prime equally.
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast could decide that it favors Netflix and throttle Amazon Prime, resulting in degradation in quality.
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast's decision could be based on money that Netflix pays Comcast for that ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Like you, I've tried to figure it out and I don't understand. First, what was the problem Obama tried to solve? Was there a problem?

This is really not the right question.
Do we need people to get hit at an intersection before recognizing that a crosswalk (with appropriate signaling) is a good idea?

And quite frankly, trying to tie Obama's name to it only exacerbates the ODS problem with the situation.

This last argument should help if you’re arguing with someone who opposes net neutrality simply because of its connection to Barack Obama. It’s true that the current rules were passed in 2015 under Obama’s guidance, but net neutrality actually dates all the way back to 2005 under Republican President George W. Bush.

Second, why does anyone believe the government can do something better? If that is even the situation.

What do you even think the government is "doing" regarding "net neutrality"?
This question from you leans more towards propaganda rhetoric than it does any appreciation for what "net neutrality" even is...Net neutrality states that the ISPs cannot throttle to sites based on content.HOW does that equate to "government" doing something "better"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Third, why does anyone think the government is ever going to be neutral?

Do you get it's the ISPs that need to be neutral?

What control do you think government has with "net neutrality" in the first place?
The realistic answer is none.

Net Neutrality would establish that the Pontiac, Honda and BMW can all go at the max speed limit on the same highway.
Without net neutrality, the Honda is limited to 30 MPH because Honda corp didn't pay as much as Pontiac...
Or possibly Honda is throttled because the road owner likes Pontiac better...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Government says:
Private industry must hire two from group A, 3 fro group B.
Private business must provide services for whatever group is currently in favor.

What the heck do the above two sentences have to do with net neutrality?
Net Neutrality would instead state that all have the same opportunity on the internet highway.
Which consumers choose what is entirely still up to the consumers. They (consumers) could all select from Group A and NONE from Group B.

What Net Neutrality prevents is the ISP from saying that it wants to allow Group B to go twice as fast as Group A...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Religious groups, which are the only Constitutionally protected groups, must provide birth control against their beliefs.

Considering ISPs are not "religious groups", this comment is completely irrelevant.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

From what I can tell, it seems that Net Neutrality is a way of telling ISP's how they have to run their business. If they want to provide faster speeds for a greater price, why not allow them? After all, they are the ones that have to provide the service. For those that are willing to pay a higher price to watch NetFlicks, why should their neighbor who only checks their email once a day, have to pay the same price?

If the ISP's begin to run rough shot over their customers, another ISP can step in and provide a better service for a better price, the free market in action. If I don't like the way Wal-Mart runs their store, I am free to go to their competitor. I don't need the government to come in and smack Wal-Marts hands.

__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetAClue

From what I can tell, it seems that Net Neutrality is a way of telling ISP's how they have to run their business. If they want to provide faster speeds for a greater price, why not allow them?

Who they charge is the key distinguisher here though...
If John and Mark are consumers and John wants to go twice as fast as Mark (and pays for it), that's legal.

What it prevents is charging third party internet sites for speed, while at the same time charging the customers for speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetAClue

After all, they are the ones that have to provide the service.

Currently, as in the above, John and Mark DO PAY for the service.

Currently in the above, Netflix and Amazon Prime DO NOT pay Comcast just because John & Mark want to surf their sites.
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast COULD decide to charge Netflix & Amazon Prime for different speeds which John / Mark would receive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetAClue

For those that are willing to pay a higher price to watch NetFlicks, why should their neighbor who only checks their email once a day, have to pay the same price?

Again, for the consumer, YES.
Consumers can pay for different ISP options.

But Net Neutrality IS NOT about whether or not consumers get charged more from ISPs.
It's about whether or not ISPs can start to charge web-sites for bandwidth / speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetAClue

If the ISP's begin to run rough shot over their customers, another ISP can step in and provide a better service for a better price, the free market in action. If I don't like the way Wal-Mart runs their store, I am free to go to their competitor. I don't need the government to come in and smack Wal-Marts hands.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Football is not a reasonable comparison to the strangle-hold monopoly that ISPs have on internet access.
With football, it's easily recognizable that one could shift to another sport if "football" is deemed boycott worthy.
With ISPs, there is no realistic alternative.

The ISPs have successfully created a monopoly for themselves and we can't just say "free market will fix it" when the evidence clearly shows the free market fixes nothing regarding ISPs.

There isn't reasonable market competition? I've got two cables running in front of my house. Any number of satellite providers. Internet providers, Land lines. Cell phones. I even have a tablet with its own phone number that I can use remotely while in my car or connect to my TV. How much competition do you need?

Comcast recently raised my rate. I now use Verizon. Less cost and higher speed.

ISP's have a reputation for bad customer service. Particularly Comcast. Verizon has moved most of their service back to the US, One of the reasons I switched.

Contrast this with 15 years ago. Counties granted exclusives in exchange for cash. You got what you got and paid what you paid. For 3 channels and a land line with dial up.

To paraphrase a recent president, government didn't build that, competition built that.

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

There isn't reasonable market competition? I've got two cables running in front of my house. Any number of satellite providers. Internet providers, Land lines. Cell phones. I even have a tablet with its own phone number that I can use remotely while in my car or connect to my TV. How much competition do you need?

You want to talk about competition between apples, oranges, tangerines and zucchini.

We need to talk about APPLES competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Comcast recently raised my rate. I now use Verizon. Less cost and higher speed.

Every ISP charges less at the start.
And both suck on a consumer level for customer service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

ISP's have a reputation for bad customer service. Particularly Comcast. Verizon has moved most of their service back to the US, One of the reasons I switched.
Contrast this with 15 years ago. Counties granted exclusives in exchange for cash. You got what you got and paid what you paid. For 3 channels and a land line with dial up.
To paraphrase a recent president, government didn't build that, competition built that.

Nobody is saying that on the scale of 15 years, there have been no improvements.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

We have already seen Leftists pressure ISP's into revoking service to websites they declare too offensive such as Sturmfront. There is no arguing Sturmfront content is repulsive but the point is net neutrality did nothing to stop the censorship.

That has nothing to do with the Internet service providers. That has everything to do with the webhosters. Comcast,Verizon who whoever is Sturmfront's ISP did not kick them off.Whoever is Sturmfront's webhoster's ISP did not kick them off.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

Re: No, The End of “Net Neutrality” is Not The End of the World (Wide Web)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

The point the article brought out was that this wasn't a problem before net neutrality, so why would it suddenly be a problem without it?

You do know that Comcast intentionally slowed traffic to Netflix? So it was before net neutrality.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt